Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a premalignant disorder characterized by the asymptomatic presence of a monoclonal protein. It is defined by an M protein < 3 gm/dl, less than 10% clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow, and the absence of anemia, hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency and bone lesions. In 2010 the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) advocated for MGUS patients to be stratified into low risk disease, which carries a 5% risk of progression to multiple myeloma at 20 years, and high risk disease, which represents a 20% risk at 20 years. This stratification model categorizes patients as low risk if they have an IgG paraprotein with an M-component < 1.5 g/dl and a normal free light chain (FLC) ratio. As such, it is suggested that the initial workup be comprised of a serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP), an immunofixation (IFE), and a FLC ratio. A bone marrow biopsy (BM) and bone survey should only be performed if anemia, hypercalcemia or an elevated creatinine of unclear etiology is noted. If these studies place a patient into the low risk, it is suggested the patient follow up at 6-months with only an SPEP. If the SPEP is stable, the next follow-up is recommended to occur at 2 to 3 year intervals unless symptoms arise suggestive of a plasma cell dyscrasia. The risk stratification of MGUS patients was validated in 2013 by Turesson et al. in a Swedish cohort (Blood, 2014; 123:338-345). Nevertheless, the risk model is not universally accepted and unnecessary office visits along with laboratory studies are performed on low risk patients. The purpose of this study was to perform an internal retrospective review of our patients diagnosed with low risk MGUS, evaluating excess medical costs incurred when patients were not risk stratified by the IMWG recommendations. Methods: MGUS patients seen in the Hematology Oncology Division of Drexel University between 2014 and 2016 were retrospectively categorized into high and low risk based on the IMWG criteria. Those determined to be low risk were evaluated over two years for extra costs incurred outside the IMWG recommendations. Extra cost was tallied based on initial workup and surveillance studies performed up to two years from diagnosis. Costs per test and follow up visits were based on our office appointment pricing and BM biopsy charges. Laboratory costs were obtained based on pricing from ACCU reference lab. Cost per test (varies by lab/provider) SPEP $67 UPEP $130 Serum IFE $200 Urine IFE $72 IgA $27 IgG $27 IgM $27 K/L ratio $120 B2 microglobulin $42 Office Visit $40 - $100 Bone Survey $500 - $1200 BM biopsy $500- $1000 Results: Sixty patients seen between 2014 and 2016 met the criteria for MGUS. Twenty-eight patients were determined to have low risk disease. Of the 28 patients, five were diagnosed prior to 2010 and were excluded. In the remaining 23 patients, four followed up at exactly six months from diagnosis and only one had an SPEP. The most common test ordered was quantitative immunoglobulins (QI) aside from a CBC and CMP. The total number of excess office visits was 49. Three patients had unnecessary BM biopsies (total cost $1,000 - $2,000), and 11 had unnecessary bone surveys (Total $5,500 - $13,200). The total cost of unnecessary lab tests within 2 years was $6,024 and the total cost of unnecessary office visits within 2 years was $1960 - $4900. Thus, the average excess spent per patient was $630 - $1135, for a total excess cost for the 23 patients of $14,484 - $26,124. Conclusion: This internal review highlights the excess medical costs incurred when patients are not risk stratified by the IMWG recommendations. Ideally, no further health care dollars should be spent for low risk MGUS patients who have a stable SPEP at the 6-month visit until the 2 or 3 year follow up visit. The actual excess amount spent in our office in 2 years for these patients was $14,484 - $26,124 beyond the cost of the standard of care recommended by the IMWG guidelines. Additionally, these values did not include excess basic labs such as a CBC or CMP and it did not include extension of our investigation out to three years which would result in further unnecessary costs. One patient was noted to accumulate excess cost due to his co-morbid condition of prostate cancer, which led to increased surveillance for his low risk MGUS. The risk stratification model allows physicians to offer patients a better understanding of their disease, decrease the patient's burden and reduce the cost on healthcare. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Introduction: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a chronic and debilitating disorder that affects approximately 100,000 Americans and results in the development of significant complications, leading to high numbers of hospitalizations, healthcare cost and mortality. Despite the advent of newer therapies, the overall rate of complications has continued to rise. We aimed to study the prevalence of complications in SCD as well as its relation to differing insurance status. Methods: Patients with SCD were identified using ICD-9 codes 2826, 28260, 28261, 28262, 28263, 28264, 28268 and 28269 from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1999 to 2014. Admission with acute chest syndrome, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), avascular necrosis of the hip (AVN), end stage renal disease (ESRD), pneumococcal infections, splenic sequestration and stroke. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed using the Chi square test. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to control for multiple confounders in calculating the hazard ratios of an event occurrence and mortality. Results: A total of 216,438 (Weighted=1,066,536) observations were identified from the years 1999 to 2014. The median age for male patients was 25 years and that for females was 27. Observing the trends from 1999 to 2014, the prevalence of acute chest syndrome increased from 1.22% to 8.82% (p=0.002), splenic sequestration from to 0.08 % to 1% (p=0.01) and AVN from 1 % to 8.8% (p=0.001). The prevalence of stroke and ESRD were unchanged over the interval studied. After controlling for confounding factors such as race, age, sex, income, comorbidities and insurance status, the hazard ratio of mortality for various complications is significantly elevated. Also, after controlling for multiple confounders, the patient's insurance status plays a significant role in the risk of developing a complication and subsequent mortality (Table 1). Discussion: The data indicates that the rate of complications from SCD have risen since 1999. With newer therapies and better understanding, the life expectancy of SCD patients has risen over time, nearly doubling from 1951 to 2018. The increased frequency of complications may be attributed to better survivorship and a rising number of older SCDs patients. However, our data also suggests that insurance status plays a significant role in the complication rate of SCD. The uninsured and patients with Medicaid have significantly increased risk of developing disease complications and resultant mortality. This could be the result of reduced access to care and health disparities due to race, socioeconomic status and insurance status. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Introduction: Case reports have suggested that there is an increased risk of hematological malignancies with sickle cell disease (SCD). We aimed to investigate the prevalence and mortality of select hematological malignancies, including: acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocytopenia (ET), Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), primary myelofibrosis (PMF) in patients hospitalized with SCD. Methods: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample to identify the hospitalizations with SCD using ICD-9 codes 282.6, 282.60, 282.61, 282.62, 282.63, 282.64, 282.68, 282.69 from 1999 to 2014. Cases were then stratified based on the concurrent presence of the above hematological malignancies. The percentages of patients with each type of hematological malignancy were obtained using Chi-square analysis. In addition, we compared outcomes between patients with and without SCD who had hematological malignancies. Bivariate analysis for in-hospital mortality percentage was performed using Chi-square test. Multivariate analysis to evaluate the risk of death during hospitalization was performed using Cox proportional hazard regression with alpha set at 0.05. Results: There were 307,424 admissions (weighted=1,513,168) with SCD. Within these admissions, 0.04% (n=516) were associated with AML, 0.05% (n=720) with HL, 0.02% (n=47) with ALL, 0.07% (n=1,028) with NHL, 0.69% (n=10,654) with ET, 0.01% (n=20) with PMF and 0.01% (n=18) with PV. The hazard ratio for mortality (95% C.I.) with SCD compared to without SCD was 3.60 (1.24-4.67) for AML (p <0.001), 4.56 (2.78-6.78) for ET (p <0.001), 2.37 (1.41-5.67) for NHL (p=0.003), 1.5 (0.8-4.5) for HL (p=0.08), 1.1 (0.5-3.2) for ALL (p=0.04), 1.3 (1.1-3.2) for PMF (p= 0.03) and 1.7 (0.6-2.9) for PV (p=0.05). Discussion: The most frequently encountered hematological malignancy in patients with SCD was ET, followed by NHL and then HL. After controlling for multiple confounders including age, race, sex, comorbidities and socioeconomic status, the hazard of death during hospitalization with SCD, ET, AML, NHL and ALL are significantly higher compared to those without SCD. While uncommonly encountered, concomitant hematological malignancy and SCD portends a significantly worse outcome, particularly in ET and AML. Potential explanations include iron overload from prior transfusions, increased infection risk due to asplenia and vascular damage from previous vaso-occlusive events. Newer advances in the management of SCD might improve subsequent outcomes in hematological malignancies. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
24 Background: An informed decision requires good communication between the patient and their oncologist in regards to diagnosis and prognosis, especially in patients with terminal cancer. This discussion entails education about their disease, treatment options, and potential outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess advanced-stage cancer oncology patients’ comprehension of their disease, treatment options and goals of therapy. Methods: Subjects included patients with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer with an option for palliative or life extending chemotherapy in an out-patient office at Drexel University College of Medicine. Outpatient office charts were reviewed to identify eligible patients. All subjects consented to participate. Participation included completing a 34-item questionnaire about comprehension of their cancer, satisfaction, perception of their physician interaction regarding disease education and potential barriers to patient understanding. Results: 52 patients analyzed to date: 1 patient was not aware he had cancer. 3 patients (5.7%) thought there was no longer cancer in their bodies. 33 patients (62%) thought the goal of therapy was to cure their cancer. 27 patients (51%) thought the goal of therapy was to extend how long they will live. 11 patients (20.7%) thought the goal of therapy was to palliate symptoms. 5 patients (9.4%) did not know why they were on therapy for their cancer. 5 patients (9.4%) indicated they had talked about hospice with their doctor. 5 patients (9.4%) felt they shouldn’t ask any questions. 48 patients (90.5%) felt they were participating in their treatment decisions. 4 patients (7.5%) stated they didn’t understand the medical terms used by the doctors. Compared to what patients wish they knew, almost 30% felt they knew half or very little about their diagnosis and 33% felt they knew half, very little, or nothing about their prognosis. Conclusions: Due to discrepancies between patient understanding and the intended goals of care, our study highlights the need for further guidance in effectively communicating extent of disease and predicted outcome. It is also important to periodically ask patients to discuss their understanding of their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations –citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.